I also agree that games should be playtested before inclusion in a competition, I would not dream of releasing a game that had not been playtested to my satisfaction. Mind you, how easy - or hard - is it to get playtesters for ADRIFT games? I am going to have to ask for volunteers when I finish "Fortress of Fear".

In regards to the previous topic about authors being allowed to update their games during the competition, I sincerely hope that this new rule will be taken off the table next year. If not this is the first and last year I will enter the IF Competition.

I can't see the advantage of allowing authors to change their games in the middle of a running competition. (except for the authors of course )Just one example:Hello,the game Dead Hotel has been updated. The new version includes game fixes, gameplay extensions and new feelies. See copy of deadupdate.txt below.Could this be considered the game entered into the competition?

Po. Prune wrote:In regards to the previous topic about authors being allowed to update their games during the competition, I sincerely hope that this new rule will be taken off the table next year. If not this is the first and last year I will enter the IF Competition.

I can't see the advantage of allowing authors to change their games in the middle of a running competition. (except for the authors of course )Just one example:Hello,the game Dead Hotel has been updated. The new version includes game fixes, gameplay extensions and new feelies. See copy of deadupdate.txt below.Could this be considered the game entered into the competition?

To me the whole idea of the competition has been smashed.

I agree. Allowing authors to update their games during the comp just leads to them changing anything about the games that people dislike. Which sounds suspiciously like cheating to me, or at the very least underhanded. The only time an author should be allowed to update his game is if the software it's written with has changed since he submitted it, not to add extra stuff, fix typos and the like which ideally should have been sorted out before the comp even began. I also can't say I care for the way the comp organiser introduced this new rule AFTER the comp had started. I certainly won't be entering next year if this rule is still in place.

Lazzah wrote:Maybe any updates could be restricted to bug-fixes where the bug was serious enough to prevent the game being finished or one which causes the game to crash (if that's possible?).

I'm not even sure that's good enough Lazzah.One of the rules for submitting a game is that you also submit a walk-through that proves that the game can be finished.I will go with David's comment, that the only reason for being allowed to update your game is if the software running it has changed.Another thing is that there may be authors who, for some reason, doesn't have the possibility to go in and update their game. Just an example; My wife and I went on a 5 week vacation and days could go by without me being able to go on the internet. Had the IF Comp been running by then, I would have had no chance to update my game. What I'm trying to point out is that the rule is unfair altogether.

I think that the rule itself is perfectly fair; it applies equally to everyone. But changing the rules after the start (or even shortly before the start) of the competition isn't good. A change this big should have plenty of warning. I also don't care for the fact that a person who plays a game early on may play a different game than a person who plays it late on.

Then again, considering that ADRIFT is the only major system whose runner changes much, the suggestion that "You can only update your game if the software running it has changed." seems rather self-serving.

Bloodhounds can make you laugh and cuss in the same breath. They are endearing, faithful, and can sling drool ten feet in any direction. -- Virginia Lanier

ralphmerridew wrote:Then again, considering that ADRIFT is the only major system whose runner changes much, the suggestion that "You can only update your game if the software running it has changed." seems rather self-serving.

My game was written with ADRIFT 4 Version 51 whch was last updated (according to the main site) on 20th April 2008.

As ralphmerridew points out the rule is perfectly fair as it does apply to all. But, I personally do not think it is a good idea. The game that is entered by the deadline should be the one that is played - warts and all and should be the finished product. I am playing through the games now but I will not replay any that are changed. I do not have the time to continually check on which version I should be playing today or the time or inclination to replay games I've already played and judged.

Currently working on "The Blank Wall" in ADRIFT 5 and "Again and Again" in Inform 7.Delron, the home of Otter Interactive Fiction.

I'm kind of ambivalent about the rule. I think it's useful to cover situations that have happened in previous years, where a game was submitted with a game-crashing bug in some 'terps, and so had to be updated just to finish the game. That being said, I think it's better to have an unwritten rule, whereby if you can prove that your game crashes in certain circumstances (eg, in WinFrotz, but not in Gargoyle) and therefore needs an urgent bug-fix, then you can submit it to the comp organiser and he'll issue an update.

I admit I haven't really been keeping up with the IFComp this year. My intention was to wait till the results are in and play the top ten and any ADRIFT entries (which will hopefully be in the top ten anyway) and any others that catch my eye. Lazy I know, but I don't know when I'm going to have time to play forty games...though there's still a month, I suppose if things settle down a bit I can try.

The new rule does seem pretty unfair though. Making sure your game is playable with no major bugs is a part of any competition, as is figuring out what to prioritize and which cool ideas and level of polish you will and won't have time to add. And even with that aside, I would think it would be an issue that people coming in late, like me, may in many cases wind up playing a completely different game than everyone else.

I'm curious, are people complaining about this on RAIF or anywhere else?

Lumin wrote:The new rule does seem pretty unfair though. Making sure your game is playable with no major bugs is a part of any competition, as is figuring out what to prioritize and which cool ideas and level of polish you will and won't have time to add. And even with that aside, I would think it would be an issue that people coming in late, like me, may in many cases wind up playing a completely different game than everyone else.

I'm curious, are people complaining about this on RAIF or anywhere else?

There's been quite a bit of discussion on the IF forum about it, but aside from me and Po Prune (and the forum's resident troll), no one really seems to have a problem with it. I suppose I can grudingly admit it's not technically cheating as anyone has the opporunity to update their game, but when I see that some games have now been updated no less than three times it's hard to have much faith in the fairness of the comp. The fact that the comp organiser conveniently included the rule only AFTER the comp had begun didn't really help matters much.

if they submit a game that's unplayable or unenjoyable that's how it should be 'till the contest is over. maybe if the game gets a certain number of bug complaints it should get pulled so the author can fix it and submit it next year or for another comp and fewer judges would have to suffer through it.